PRITHVI PAL SINGH LAMBA,ROHTAK vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee alleging some bogus commodity transactions and cash deposits of Rs.15,00,000/- made in the relevant previous year. And that his reassessment framed on 29.12.2019 ended up in making Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba twin additions of unexplained money u/s 69A amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- and disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.20,23,447/-; respectively. There is further no dispute that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has deleted the above section 69A addition of Rs.15,00,000/- in the lower appellate proceedings. It is thus clear in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition of cost of improvement nowhere formed subject matter of reopening reasons by the learned Assessing Officer.

That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the tribunal ought to uphold the impugned reopening as the Assessing Officer had duly added Rs.15,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands in his assessment order. She could hardly dispute that the above addition of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deleted in the lower appellate proceedings. Meaning thereby that the sole surviving issue of cost of improvement claimed at the assessee’s behest was not part of the learned Assessing Officer reopening reasons. The question as to whether such a reopening is sustainable or not, is no more res integra in light of CIT Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) and Mahesh Kumar [TS-1030-ITAT-2025 (Del)] (TM) wherein settling the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department. I accordingly reject the Revenue’s foregoing

All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.